The religion of peer review

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

Those who opposed open access have been known to say that there 
is no scientific proof that an open access business model will 
work.  I agree!

However - is there scientific proof that current methods will 
work?

Pricing and terms of service is, at best, determined by a 
collegial approach to negotiations by librarians and vendors - 
exactly the kind of work that many a liblicenser is engaged in. 
This is a very fine thing; but it is a business model relying on 
scientific evidence.

The current approach has also led to the serials crisis.  If this 
was developed through scientific methodology - someone must have 
forgotten a variable or two.  Such as the fact that raising 
prices every year higher than library budgets could conceivably 
rise would lead to a crisis, for example.

I also hear much about the sanctity of peer review.  Here is an 
interesting view on the matter:

"THE RELIGION OF PEER REVIEW

Despite a lack of evidence that peer review works, most 
scientists (by nature a skeptical lot) appear to believe in peer 
review. It's something that's held "absolutely sacred" in a field 
where people rarely accept anything with "blind faith," says 
Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ and now CEO of 
UnitedHealth Europe and board member of PLoS. "It's very 
unscientific, really." This from a very interesting article - 
worth reading through:

Alison McCook.  Is Peer Review Broken?  The Scientist:  Magazine of
the Life Sciences 20:2, page 26.  at:

http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/26/1/

thoughts?

Heather Morrison
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com